A medium unchanging, neither demanding, expecting nor obtaining audience involvement save for their subjugation to the crystal wall; coming set face to face with a living wave of ever-shifting content called the internet, a participatory hive mind.

Television hangs on in this battle, but this is a long defeat for this old giant as the situation stands...

The solution is obvious to most everyone except the entrenched interests: admit that the old channel mechanism is largely dead (there are some streams, CNN for instance, that lend themseves to this model), and start selling shows per-ep and per-season, on-demand, on-time, and for a reasonable price.

And get rid of advertising for for-pay programming. People may not be able to verbalize the problem, but they mostly know that content providers are double-dipping.

If people can get their shows in a reasonable timeframe for a reasonable cost, they'll do it. If not, they'll torrent...or just not watch.

A medium unchanging, neither demanding, expecting nor obtaining audience involvement save for their subjugation to the crystal wall; coming set face to face with a living wave of ever-shifting content called the internet, a participatory hive mind.

Television hangs on in this battle, but this is a long defeat for this old giant as the situation stands...

There's still a good chunk of the population that are perfectly content to turn on a stream of video with commercials embedded in it and just watch whatever happens to be on. I think enthusiasts tend to overestimate the impact of enthusiasts. Conventional TV may linger on far longer than any of us would expect or want.

The solution is obvious to most everyone except the entrenched interests: admit that the old channel mechanism is largely dead (there are some streams, CNN for instance, that lend themseves to this model), and start selling shows per-ep and per-season, on-demand, on-time, and for a reasonable price.

And get rid of advertising for for-pay programming. People may not be able to verbalize the problem, but they mostly know that content providers are double-dipping.

If people can get their shows in a reasonable timeframe for a reasonable cost, they'll do it. If not, they'll torrent...or just not watch.

It's only dead in the same sense that the PC is dead... prematurely pronounced at best.

Wow. Reading these comments makes me feel like some sort of big spender; I have cable (employee rates are awesome) as well as Hulu Plus, Crunchyroll, Netflix, and Amazon Prime (which I really only get because of my precious precious free shipping).

I think I can honestly say that I haven't heard anyone say "There's nothing on" in my house in a VERY long time. It's a pretty good time to be a consumer of video content.

Has anyone seen numbers for video piracy recently? I would hope that this much competition would drive down piracy; I haven't even downloaded new Anime recently, thanks to the availability of Crunchyroll.

We can't talk about where TVs are now without touching on the relative abomination that has been 3D TV. Consumer 3D TVs started to enter the market around three years ago to some initial excitement. But even as the sets progressed from requiring viewers to wear glasses to 3D effects you could see without headgear, the feature has failed. It hasn't created a renaissance of compelling content; it hasn't convinced anyone it’s an essential feature. 3D remains a gimmick.

That said, 3D comes standard on many TVs now. If customers are pursuing a new set, they are likely to get it whether they want it or not. It’s hard to see the feature as anything more than an add-on that was an attempt to revive TV sales and drive customers back into stores once the surge of HD sales died down (that it requires a whole new type of content helps TV and movie creators, too). 3D didn’t capture much attention, but cranking up the resolution again may reignite buying interest where 3D failed.

The biggest issue 4k and 8k TVs isn't really one of content, but realistic value. OLED TVs are gorgeous and I definitely see things go in that way, but unless you've got a giant wall to play with you won't be able to tell the difference. 480p was different in that more than anything else really - at the distances where the screen is watchable, both 720p and 1080p mattered, although there are many people who sit too far away to tell the difference between those two already. The hard sell will be convincing people get even higher resolutions when they won't really use it, not because of content, but because their eyes can't tell the difference anymore.

I mean there's marketing, but still. I can't really see that race pick up outside of home theater enthusiasts and movie theaters. I'm much more interested in making portable projector versions of TV than anything else - like Samsung Beam on steroids. Having TV with you at all times will be the movement.

But I do want me some OLED screens. Just make them a third of my size instead of twice it.

The solution is obvious to most everyone except the entrenched interests: admit that the old channel mechanism is largely dead (there are some streams, CNN for instance, that lend themseves to this model), and start selling shows per-ep and per-season, on-demand, on-time, and for a reasonable price.

And get rid of advertising for for-pay programming. People may not be able to verbalize the problem, but they mostly know that content providers are double-dipping.

If people can get their shows in a reasonable timeframe for a reasonable cost, they'll do it. If not, they'll torrent...or just not watch.

So you don't want content going forward then? Networks are making about 6 to 10 percent margins on their whole media holdings. The streaming services don't even make .2 percent margins (note not 2 but .2). What you suggest is an unworkable business model.

Yeah USA, TNT, ESPN want to go out of business I am sure they will get right on getting rid of commercials.

I think that the traditional broadcasters are struggling because they've forgotten the one most important thing--it's all about the content.

Broadcasters got hit with a one-two punch that they didn't see coming. First, they sold out to the "reality TV" craze. They figured out that they could produce content much more cheaply while still collecting the same advertising revenue. What they apparently didn't count on was the effect of over-saturation of reality TV. People got tired of it. Second, streaming video really hit its stride right when people were tired of watching reality TV on every channel. Consumers left traditional television in droves.

I'm a cable-cutter--I've been without any sort of broadcast television source for about two years now. That's not to say I don't pay for content--I spend hundreds of dollars buying seasons of shows on iTunes. On top of that I spend about $30 per month on Netflix, Hulu+, and Amazon subscriptions. Everything I watch is legitimately paid for.

If content creators like HBO want to really rake in the profits, fire the broadcasters. Or at least get out of your current deals with them. I couldn't swipe my credit card fast enough to buy the current season of Game of Thrones direct from HBO if I could watch it as soon as it airs. Heck, I'd gladly pay double what I used to pay DirecTV just to get naked access to HBO GO.

The same goes for the other content producers. I *want* to give them my money in exchange for good content. I just want to pay for it piecemeal, instead of paying $150 per month for 300 channels when I only have time to keep up with a handful of shows at a time.

Pirates still get the fastest access to commercial-less TV shows. If only networks were to let Netflix and Amazon Prime and Hulu instant access, then I can see a lot more people signing on to these services and more money to be made likewise.

The trend to abandon cable in favor of streaming and digital delivery options seems to be inevitable; the real question is how long will it take for cord-cutting on the TV side to reach the pace that we're seeing on the phone side?

I'm thirty, I've lived on my own for a little over decade, and I've never had a cable subscription in all that time. The closest I came was plugging the coax cable into my TV ten years ago and discovering that, cable subscription or not, I did get some channels. Even then, all I used it for was to turn on CNN to have background noise.

I--and probably a lot of people younger than me--never really wrapped my head around the whole "Be in front of the TV at Time_X so you don't miss Show_Y". I have stuff to do with my day, and if I'm going to watch TV at all, it'll be like movies; in my own time, and on my own terms.

For most of the past decade, that's meant torrents, because there was no other viable method of watching the (relatively few) shows I wanted to watch, when I wanted to watch them, especially when DVD releases were late and overpriced, assuming they showed up at all.

Physical media delivery and pricing have gotten a lot better in the intervening years, and although Canada doesn't have even a quarter of the streaming options available in the USA (short of a VPN tunnel to the USA, which is becoming increasingly popular), those services now at least do exist.

It might take a while for traditional cable subscribers to cut the cord, but I think we'll be seeing increasing numbers of young consumers who won't see any reason to start paying $100+ a month for five hundred channels they don't care about, in order to watch (DVR, really) the few shows they do. Already, I see a strong correlation between folks under 35 with cable and folks under 35 who need to watch live sports; once that nut is cracked, I expect cable subscriptions to plummet.

Even with those Cable deals, you have to add about $15-20 per box. For a family of 5 each with their own TV that's +$100. Plus most cable companies charge you a fee for HD and digital.

My Comcast Triple play would be $310/ month with 5 boxes (1 is DVR). My other option is Verizon which is $10-15 less then more after 2 years.

Which is why I do just internet and phone for $110/ mo. and Direct TV for $100 with only 4 boxes.And also I'm not getting all channels we want as Direct TV plays around with switching the kids cartoon channels a lot. Plus i don't get Scify, BBS, Military, HBO.

The biggest issue 4k and 8k TVs isn't really one of content, but realistic value. OLED TVs are gorgeous and I definitely see things go in that way, but unless you've got a giant wall to play with you won't be able to tell the difference. 480p was different in that more than anything else really - at the distances where the screen is watchable, both 720p and 1080p mattered, although there are many people who sit too far away to tell the difference between those two already. The hard sell will be convincing people get even higher resolutions when they won't really use it, not because of content, but because their eyes can't tell the difference anymore.

I mean there's marketing, but still. I can't really see that race pick up outside of home theater enthusiasts and movie theaters.

This. 4k and plus might end up selling as replacements TVs when peoples HDTVs die but there is not going to be the rush there has been over the last decade with HDTV. 3D was their last chance at seeing this rush to buy a new tech and that basically failed. Like you said most people are at the point they cant tell the difference between 1080 and 720 from where they sit so 4k is just overkill.

The whole world is not moving to 4k like it did with HDTV. With HDTV you had all your network and cable programs becoming HD. You had the switchover that was in the news a lot. DVDs looked better on HDTV and then Blu Rays. While with 4k TV is not going to move that way anytime soon as they are still paying for their HDTV equipment let alone having viable transmission options.

An interesting article, but it completely missed talking about Tivo and other DVR setups which have also changed how we watch. And since my Tivo also lets me watch my Netflix streaming, it's a win-win for my family.

Is it perfect? No. Could it be better? Yes! But having a Tivo (lifetime subscription!) is a fantastic way to watch and find shows to record. Is it instant in terms of on-demand? Pretty much, though Netflix has been losing a bunch of shows that used to be there, and the back catalog is skimpy in alot of ways too. But I don't want to spend yet more money on a competitor just for those few extra shows or movies.

But talking about Cable boxes and program guides, using that laggy horrible one on comcast or charter or any of the other systems is just horrible. Takes an annoyingly perceptible amount of time to reload, and if you get too far ahead, it will continue to skip forward until it damn well wants to stop. Frustrating. This is another area where my Tivo rules, in that the program guide is practically instant.

I suspect one reason Apple hasn't made a big splash with Apple TV is they are still figuring out how to make it attractive to people, how to monetize it, and enclose it within their proprietary walled-garden.

TV's pervasiveness and future is vastly larger than what Apple can wrangle at this time -- and until Apple can put a leash on it, I can't see them letting that dog walk.

I think that the traditional broadcasters are struggling because they've forgotten the one most important thing--it's all about the content.

Broadcasters got hit with a one-two punch that they didn't see coming. First, they sold out to the "reality TV" craze. They figured out that they could produce content much more cheaply while still collecting the same advertising revenue. What they apparently didn't count on was the effect of over-saturation of reality TV. People got tired of it. Second, streaming video really hit its stride right when people were tired of watching reality TV on every channel. Consumers left traditional television in droves.

What do you consider good broadcast content? Lost? That show lost over half its audience by its 5th season from its 1st. It lost a 3rd of its audience in the second season.

Its reality TV keeping NBC from losing a whole bunch of money. The Voice is all of their ratings outside of Sunday Football. This is by far the number 1 show on TV for the demo. So not sure how people are tired of it. Idol was the number 1 show for like 8 years. It was event TV pulling in NFL ad rates for most of its run with 30 million plus viewers and over a 10 in the demo. It was not 24 or House or Fringe doing these numbers.

You might be tired of reality TV but the viewing patterns of America show that is what they like. Even cable with its great dramas you know what wins it every week shows like Duck Dynasty and Swamp People. These shows crush Justified.

Quote:

If content creators like HBO want to really rake in the profits, fire the broadcasters. Or at least get out of your current deals with them. I couldn't swipe my credit card fast enough to buy the current season of Game of Thrones direct from HBO if I could watch it as soon as it airs. Heck, I'd gladly pay double what I used to pay DirecTV just to get naked access to HBO GO.

While you might pay the 20 to 25 dollars it would take to break even for HBO the vast majority wouldn't. They have 30 million subscribers with the current system why on Earth would they jeopardize that to be like .15 percent margin Netflix, no profit Hulu, and lose money Amazon Prime?

Quote:

The same goes for the other content producers. I *want* to give them my money in exchange for good content. I just want to pay for it piecemeal, instead of paying $150 per month for 300 channels when I only have time to keep up with a handful of shows at a time.

Because its the only model that works. Unbundling means a channel that cost the cable companies .85 cents a month would end up costing you 29 dollars in order to have the same revenue. This is absurd on its face that people are going to pay 29 dollars for a single channel hence that channel on its own would have to dramatically reduce costs and not be the channel it was meaning less people subscribe. Repeat and rinse.

Amazon Prime Instant Video service dabbles much more heavily in individual pay-to-play content than some of its competitors, charging money to rent or buy some titles and making others free to stream. That, on top of the $79 subscription, can make Amazon's service a little hard to stomach.

I can't understand this statement at all. If you do any internet shopping at all, you can likely find what you are looking for on Amazon at the same or better price and get free two day shipping. You can really save a ton on common items if you use Subscribe & Save (15% off entire order of 5 items for same delivery) which blows pretty much any local store sale out of the water. I have changed all of my shopping habits to account for my 2 day delivery timeframe and by itself the free shipping is totally worth it.

Then as someone else said above you have the icing in the cake with Instant Video. You get access to a pretty good TV show library and a modestly good free movie library, plus brand new movies to rent at the same or better price as any other streaming service. And 180k free books on the Kindle Lending Library is another cherry on top.

I'm in a unique spot...I got rid of cable in early 2012 and just had Hulu Plus & Amazon for TV viewing and was pretty happy with it overall. Then Fios finally got lit up in my building and I made the switch from TWC to Fios, jumping from 15/5 to 75/25 up/down speeds and getting basic cable channels + DVR for only $10/month more than I was paying for just TWC internet ($60 vs $50). It's interesting having live TV back again but I'm not finding that it is really great for anything other than sports and a handful of Food Network shows that my wife is happy to have access to again. We in fact are still using Hulu more to watch shows we are catching up on than the real TV. At this point I'm thinking once the price promotion ends in a year that I will go back to just my internet connection.

It's still no where near the perfect experience though I am interested to see the improvements in Xbox One's streaming services...if they are as near-instant as the Live TV we saw demoed I'm much more excited about that.

Its reality TV keeping NBC from losing a whole bunch of money. The Voice is all of their ratings outside of Sunday Football. This is by far the number 1 show on TV for the demo. So not sure how people are tired of it. Idol was the number 1 show for like 8 years. It was event TV pulling in NFL ad rates for most of its run with 30 million plus viewers and over a 10 in the demo. It was not 24 or House or Fringe doing these numbers.

You might be tired of reality TV but the viewing patterns of America show that is what they like. Even cable with its great dramas you know what wins it every week shows like Duck Dynasty and Swamp People. These shows crush Justified.

I've had a PC connected to my 'entertainment' system longer than anyone I know. I picked up a VGA to video box back in 1996 and had it connected to my 233mhz Package Bell (bought as an open box item), but had my 286 with Adlib sound connected to my stereo in 1990. Not to mention the commie years.

In that time I've had/not had cable and broadcast tv. I currently have neither. I have a 55 inch on the wall with 2-3 pcs generally plugged into it, and a 5.1 system. My 'battle station' is in the connecting room, and is connected to that tv and to a nice 27 inch 2560x1440 monitor. Media consumption consists of pirated content, youtube, netflix (stream and 2 dvd service), ripped dvds, spotify, local music content, Slayradio, rantTV, and misc webseries.. Milkdrop on a huge tv is always nice too. I dont use hulu and judged it as garbage.

Outside of ripping DVDs i get from netflix to watch later, it is rare that I pirate anything these days.There is generally a legal service I can use to get the content I want. It's not a question of cost, its a question of hassle, when I do pirate something. I'm also content to wait for the latest releases to hit netflix.

I've seen various TV interfaces that attempt to replace what a PC can do; they are all junk. I've also seen and played with various set top boxes; again, all junk. Great if you only want to consume what they provide, worthless if you are used to having it all. Connecting a PC or laptop to a TV is a none issue these days. Why try to live inside the confines of a poorly limited build in system when the infinite is at your finger tips. We can now connect our phones to these tvs and stereo systems too.

I can see how others might value DVRs, but I have no interest in managing programs I want to see. I did this back in 2005ish. Only thing I found myself recording was goodeats and twilight zone. The package was overly expensive for what it offered for me. And... well, I can setup a DVR on my PC.

I have almost always been a 'distracted viewer'. Watching TV while BBSing, playing video games, or hammering out misc computer skills. Today this is the norm with everyone I know. We watch our video in a window while we work/play in another window, or we put something on the tv with our laptops or phones in our hands. We use picture in picture to do silly things with viewing.

Traditional TV does have a chance to survive tho, as streaming services. We like to sometimes view up to date and local news in between someone else's play list. We even sometimes enjoy commercials! Before the broadcast change I used a TV card to enjoy access to this content. WINAMP TV was pretty popular at my place for a while also. If cable and broadcast launched streaming services I migh even be inclined to check in once in a while.

The content providers have already committed suicide - but they don't realize it yet due market inertia - by simply being stupid.

I don't know about the US (what in most of these articles in the focus on) but here in the EU there is a whole generation who is used to get their content for free and to which "tv sheduling" has very limited appeal.Combine this with the fact that * any "free" (pirated) alternative is in fact a much better "user experience" (just have a look at for example dropbear/sabnzb combo or try to start a dvd you bought vs a rip you downloaded) once set up.* any US series is delayed for months , even years before it's "released" here.* most "fan subs" (who are available in hours after airing) are at par or even actually better (manga..) than the ones provided for "paying" content.* if you try to order something that is not mainstream (dvd/cd) it takes ages to get sourced or is simply not available (not "released".. why? it's a cd/dvd/series i want to pay for... just ship it)

Besides the fact that it is ethically the right thing to do there is almost zero short term incentive to not pirate stuff.

Which , unless something really nice happens, will see the amount of money pouring in reduce over time (yeah, my parents ain't going to mess with nzb files..).Which in it's return will limit the amount of money available to make (good - looking at you HBO) content over time, feeding the downward spiral.

I think we need more than just streaming, we need DRM-free show downloads. There's no reason not to, it's not like the shows aren't already available for anyone that wants to check torrents/usenet/digital-lockers or rtmpdump them themselves. Let me watch my shows on any device, at any time, and download them at 3am.

It took music a long time to get there, but it did. TV shows needs to follow suit.

As for TVs, the first company that releases a smart TV that's hacker friendly will sell a ton of them. There's projects like samygo and openlgtv but the industry is at best hostile to these groups. The same way companies were with ddwrt on routers. When Linksys finally made it easy to install custom firmware on the wrt54g everyone and their dog bought one.

Most but not all TV programs are junk. The saturation of commercials is repellent. What is the percentage of commercial to program time now; 50% ? Luckily pay per view and video rentals exist.. Frank Zappa characterized TV best, years ago:

I am gross and pervertedI'm obsessed 'n derangedI have existed for yearsBut very little has changedI'm the tool of the GovernmentAnd industry tooFor I am destined to rule

Even with those Cable deals, you have to add about $15-20 per box. For a family of 5 each with their own TV that's +$100. Plus most cable companies charge you a fee for HD and digital.

My Comcast Triple play would be $310/ month with 5 boxes (1 is DVR). My other option is Verizon which is $10-15 less then more after 2 years.

Which is why I do just internet and phone for $110/ mo. and Direct TV for $100 with only 4 boxes.And also I'm not getting all channels we want as Direct TV plays around with switching the kids cartoon channels a lot. Plus i don't get Scify, BBS, Military, HBO.

Anyone out there have better ideas?

...why would you even consider paying for everyone to have their own TV? Holy crap.

Growing up my parents had a TV in their bedroom (that as near as I can tell didn't see much use) and there was a communal TV everyone shared. I know when I was like 12 I felt this was some great injustice being perpetrated upon me, but frankly my daughter got used to not having TV (I cut the cord when she was...10? 11-ish) and not being able to talk about the latest episode of Gossip Girl (which is like some sort of strange, self-fulfilling prophecy); she's been living with my parents for a few years now and outside of sports (which she watches with my dad) and BBC news (which she watches with my mom), the only reason she's in the library is to read one of the hundreds of great books my family has filled it with.

That's the real horror cable companies are looking at: kids growing up without cords. Chances are they're never going to look for them on their own and that becomes the new status quo.

Can't watch it for more that 5 minutes before a migraine starts and I end up nauseated.

That and polarized glasses essentially say, "who gives a crap about color quality, brightness, contrast, etc .... IT'S IN 3D!!!!" I've yet to experience the more expensive shutter glasses, but they're not even available in any theaters around me … so there's that too.

6 of the shows are Reality or Sports. If you add in total viewers you can put Dancing with the Stars on this list. Add in all the top cable reality shows and its clear as day people like Reality Shows.

Its reality TV keeping NBC from losing a whole bunch of money. The Voice is all of their ratings outside of Sunday Football. This is by far the number 1 show on TV for the demo. So not sure how people are tired of it. Idol was the number 1 show for like 8 years. It was event TV pulling in NFL ad rates for most of its run with 30 million plus viewers and over a 10 in the demo. It was not 24 or House or Fringe doing these numbers.

You might be tired of reality TV but the viewing patterns of America show that is what they like. Even cable with its great dramas you know what wins it every week shows like Duck Dynasty and Swamp People. These shows crush Justified.

Not to mention that the ratings of all the major networks (including the Reality TV which is keeping them from losing money) are plummeting.

The problem is that reality TV is essentially junk food, and the fact that channels like History and Discovery essentially lowered their standards by filling up their content with junk is one of the reasons that I haven't missed cutting out cable for the past 4 years, same goes for NBC ... Community and yes I'll admit to watching Revolution (despite the hokey characters and plots) are the only shows I like and they're both on Hulu. There is a lot of good content to watch from the entire history of television, it is a matter of opinion what is good and what isn't. I enjoyed the first couple seasons of Survivor, but the fact that these shows are getting into 10+ seasons is ridiculous, while amazing shows like Awake get cancelled after 1 season.

Even with those Cable deals, you have to add about $15-20 per box. For a family of 5 each with their own TV that's +$100. Plus most cable companies charge you a fee for HD and digital.

My Comcast Triple play would be $310/ month with 5 boxes (1 is DVR). My other option is Verizon which is $10-15 less then more after 2 years.

Which is why I do just internet and phone for $110/ mo. and Direct TV for $100 with only 4 boxes.And also I'm not getting all channels we want as Direct TV plays around with switching the kids cartoon channels a lot. Plus i don't get Scify, BBS, Military, HBO.

Anyone out there have better ideas?

...why would you even consider paying for everyone to have their own TV? Holy crap.

The idea of a family of 5 (2 parents, 3 kids) with 5 televisions -- everyone off in their own room watching a different show every night, all night...horrifying. The worst part is that it's probably true for a good sized chunk of the population.